Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 44 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Baldev Dutt

2019-01-04

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, has filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 7.9.2005 at about 5.30 p.m. at place Sanoli, the accused/respondent entered the house of the complainant Jagat Ram while carrying a stick in his hand and started hurling abuses on the complainant and his son Satish Kumar. Thereafter, the accused/ respondent tried to give a stick blow to the complainant, however Satish Kumar, son of the complainant and one Tota Ram intervened and snatched the stick from the hand of the accused/respondent. It was further alleged that at the given time, place and date, the accused/respondent gave fist and kick blows to the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which FIR Ext.PW-5/A came to be registered against the accused/respondent. SI/SHO Chaman Lal conducted investigation and during the course whereof, he visited the spot, prepared site plan Ext.PW-6/A, took into possession a stick produced by the accused Baldev Dut vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/B. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. 3. The accused was summoned and after supplying the copy of challan, notice of accusation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC was put to the accused/respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused examined two witnesses in his defence. 5. The learned trial Magistrate after evaluating the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, acquitted the respondent/accused of all the offences, constraining the State to file the instant appeal. 6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by learned trial Magistrate are perverse and, therefore, deserves to be setaside. Whereas, Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings of acquittal recorded by it. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 7. Whereas, Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings of acquittal recorded by it. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 7. At the out-set, it may be observed that neither the complainant Jagat Ram nor his son Satish Kumar has been medically examined. Thus, there is no proof whatsoever available on record that these persons had sustained any hurt. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why they were not medically examined and, therefore, an adverse inference against the prosecution will have to be drawn. 8. Now, the further question is whether the other offences under Sections 451 and 504 IPC stand proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, it would be necessary to have a cursory look at the statements of the witnesses and the other material that has come on record. The complainant PW-1 Jagat Ram stated that at the time of occurrence, accused started hurling abuses at him and when he asked him to desist from doing so, the accused entered his room while carrying a stick in his hand with an intention to give beatings to him. He further stated that when the accused tried to give a blow with the stick to him, his son PW-3 Satish Kumar and PW-2 Tota Ram intervened and snatched away the stick from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, the accused gave two fist blows to him. 9. On the other hand, PW-3 Satish Kumar, son of the complainant, has generally supported and corroborated the version of his father i.e. PW-1 Jagat Ram. However, PW-3 stated in his statement that the accused started hurling abuses at his father while standing on the house of his own house. He further stated that at the relevant time the accused was found under the influence of liquor. This is not so stated by the complainant. This is not the sole contradiction in the prosecution evidence. 10. Pw-1 Jagat Ram has stated that on hearing noise, PW-2 Tota Ram and his son PW-3 Satish came to the spot from their field and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. However, as per PW-2, Tota Ram, Satish Kumar was already present on the spot. This is not the sole contradiction in the prosecution evidence. 10. Pw-1 Jagat Ram has stated that on hearing noise, PW-2 Tota Ram and his son PW-3 Satish came to the spot from their field and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. However, as per PW-2, Tota Ram, Satish Kumar was already present on the spot. Moreover, it has come in the statement of PW-2 that at the time of hearing the noise of the children of the complainant, he entered into his house and alongwith Satish Kumar PW-3 rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused and sent him away from the spot. However, the accused returned again and tried to give a blow with stone to the complainant. This is not so mentioned or stated by the complainant while appearing as PW-1. 11. Apart from the above, PW-1 stated that quarrel continued for about one hour, whereas, PW-2 stated that it continued for 15-20 minutes and PW-3 Satish Kumar stated that quarrel continued for 2-2 hours. In addition to the above, it has come in the evidence of PW-2 Tota Ram that when he reached on the spot, all the three i.e. complainant, his son and accused were having a scuffle with each other. All of them had fallen on the ground and were holding each other. 12. Thus, it is established on record that there are material contradictions in the version put-forth by the prosecution witnesses. Here, it is pertinent to observe that none of these witnesses was in fact independent witnesses and were rather interested witnesses. PW-2 Total Ram though is the brother of the accused, but is having civil and criminal litigation with him. It has been admitted by PW-2 Tota Ram in his cross-examination that they had made complaints against each other before the Panchayat and matter has been compromised before the Panchayat several times. It is not a case where independent witnesses were in fact not available, rather it has come in the statement of complainant that the house of Mahender Kumar is situated near the house of the complainant, where the occurrence took place. However, the I.O. has not associated any independent witness from the nearby house which casts a serious suspicion and doubt on the entire prosecution story. 13. However, the I.O. has not associated any independent witness from the nearby house which casts a serious suspicion and doubt on the entire prosecution story. 13. Additionally, it has also come on record that even the relations between the complainant and the accused were far from cordial. The accused was working as Assistant under the Forest Development Scheme for the protection of forest area. He had filed a complaint against the complainant party before the President of the local Gram Panchayat in regard to damage caused by the complainant to the forest land by grazing cattle in the said land. A quarrel had taken place at the relevant time. 14. It has also come on record that such kind of quarrels had taken place inter se the parties on number of occasions. Thus, in such circumstances when the relations between the complainant and accused were not even cordial, it was although incumbent upon the prosecution to rely upon the clear, cogent and convincing evidence on the basis of which the respondent could have been ordered to be convicted. 15. Lastly, and more importantly, even the prosecution has failed to lead any clear, cogent and convincing evidence with regard to the aggressor in this case. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 Tota Ram that accused as well as complainant and his son were having scuffle when he entered into their house. Once that be so, obviously then the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused, who was aggressor. 16. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by learned Court below and the appellate Court would only interfere, where there exists perversity of fact and law. See:Banna Reddy and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790 . Further, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced against the acquitted accused by having judgment in his favour. (See:Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh versus Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 , para 94). 17. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a very recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.17021706 of 2014, titled State of Uttar Pradesh versus Wasif Haider etc., decided on 10.12.2018. 18. It cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the respondent has resulted into travesty of justice. 18. It cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the respondent has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused/respondent, are discharged.